Group A reads Shakespeare. Group B reads a work written in the style of Shakespeare, written in iambic pentameter, using obscure words of the time. The difference is that Group A's text, being actual Shakespeare, has depth (I think we can agree on that), while Group B's text lacks depth - Twilight written in an imitation of Shakespeare, perhaps.

Then compare the brain scans. The Elizabethan language should be difficult for both groups. If we see similar brain activities, this could be an indication that it is the result of the complexity of the language itself rather than the depth of the concepts.

Some of us seem intent on drawing a false parallel between enjoying a piece of writing and benefiting from reading it in the mechanical sense.

Comprehension of a text other than Shakespeare's might benefit from being read after him because the mind has been awakened to various levels of diction, language, specificity and compression.

If the idea is not to comprehend another text but to create one's own, then the quality of his writing might also help to inspire one's own thought, and suggest rhetorical and grammatical structures which are delicately (or even blatantly) balanced for additional effect.

Shakespeare's content could be helpful when, beyond the surface of the language, the reader notices and feels that classical unities provide solid continuity (esp. the unities of time and place), characterization is rich, momentum is electric and history, even flawed history, gains perspective.

There is also a pedal point of self-awareness achieved when readers find phrases in a writer (like Shake) which perfectly express their own experience.

This is contingent, of course, on their feeling that Shakespeare embodies such perfect expression. Many intelligent readers do not (and a few of them are my friends).

Nor is disliking Shakespeare synonymous with disliking difficult writing. Some people dislike Shakespeare for entirely different reasons. The plays, after all, were intended to entertain.

A text which is read after Shakepeare's might or might not benefit in any technical sense if the text is completely different in purpose -- say, a passage in an algebra textbook. For us to know whether it did benefit, we'd have to test the hypothesis.

The assertion that any complex (or busy) painting is better than a spare one is no more true than the assertion that simplicity is always best. Both are statements of subjective preference masquerading as truths.

If the point of a series of tests is to validate the claim that standards of excellence are subjective in the absolute sense, then they're not needed because we already know that.

If the point is to assert that difficult (and, some might feel, excessively revered) books aren't as good or important as people think, then the tests are not only arbitrary but ludicrous. We've gotten entirely too comfortable with inventing ways to make ourselves feel better about comparing geniuses' achievements to our own. "I'm so glad I'm a B," cooed the hypnopedic tape from Brave New World.

One of the main reasons Shakespeare is taught is because teachers have seen the results of studying him. They learn what inspires and motivates students and then continue to use it, as my mother (who taught music and English for a lifetime) often pointed out. She was always looking for literature for high school students which would not only inspire them but improve their comprehension and test their depth.

We all know that kid's chorus from Pink Floyd's well-known song about education. But railing against the appreciation of difficult work is the opposite of railing against authority -- Hitler, in fact, had the same misgivings about difficult modernist work that many supposedly anti-authoritarian readers do today.

To teach is to hand someone a key to a door, not take the key away and build a wall in the door's place.

One of the main reasons Shakespeare is taught is because teachers have seen the results of studying him. They learn what inspires and motivates students and then continue to use it, as my mother (who taught music and English for a lifetime) often pointed out. She was always looking for literature for high school students which would not only inspire them but help their comprehension and test their depth.

I have seen other results. Frustrated, uninterested kids totally turned off by the difficult language.

Shakespeare wrote plays that were meant to be performed not read and endlessly dissected by critics who study other work rather than creating their own.

@prestidigitweeze, what I'm unsure about this study, given the very small bit of info provided, is whether they tested other genres of authors as the 'control', in the way they seem to have used Shakespeare and Wordsworth.

At this point, from this distance from the report and its findings, I don't think any of us can extrapolate much because the article raises a lot of questions.

I hear your sentiments but until this professor speaks at the Conference during the week we won't be much further advanced in our knowledge. And then maybe not either, depending on how privileged the reportage is.

In the meantime I'm very curious and interested in all the different approaches each of us has taken so far in our thinking/viewpoint - there's a lot of combined knowledge/experience amongst us and we've probably all experienced Shakespeare at least in the school environment, if not movies or the theatre.

I'm not a Shakespeare person, or a poetry person, but I'm very interested in how people 'think', and watching them think.

For me this article gives a bit more insight into thinking as process .

I've seen people who were turned off to Shakespeare by being made to read it in high school, but were turned on to it after seeing it performed as it was intended.

Right -- because all plays are meant only to be seen, hence the wordplay and allusions that sometimes have to be unpacked in Shakespeare are unimportant. Audiences are always in perfect sync with whatever is easiest to follow and physically apparent, therefore the best aspect of the work is deemed not to be the writing itself.

The plays make emotional sense because the action allows confused listeners to ignore the words, not because the words make sense only within the context of what's seen. You might as well argue that poetry should only be taught when read aloud. Hearing it is important, but reading it is as well.

I hear your sentiments but until this professor speaks at the Conference during the week we won't be much further advanced in our knowledge. And then maybe not either, depending on how privileged the reportage is.

With all due respect (and I, unlike most people who use that phrase, actually mean it and won't be following it with an insult), I don't think you do hear my sentiment. How could you hear it above the din that ensued because the author of the article isn't praising paranormal-romance-novel-reading as the zenith of mental exercise?

I haven't once made suppositions about the data of the study. All I've done is respond to other posters who did (specifically, QuantumIguana's posited tests, which are intended to counterbalance the bias of said study, and which are interesting in themselves, but which I feel would simply add another level of bias).

Praising/teaching Shakespeare is drawing fire for the same reason people can't stop talking about how they hate the iPhone or the Federal Reserve:-- because the arguments have been made repeatedly before and to reiterate them is to bask in fast-food individuality.

I never said that plays should ONLY be seen and not read. I've seen many students who learn to hate Shakespeare by being forced to read it in school. I think that students will have a greater appreciation of Shakespeare by first watching it. Some of them will then want to read Shakespeare afterward.

No one claimed that paranormal romance was the zenith of mental exercise. I mentioned Twilight, but I did so as an example of something far from the zenith of mental exercise. The author talked about trashy novels, but didn't define what constituted trash. As far as I could tell, the potshot at trashy novels came from the author of the article, rather than from the people who performed the study.

I have made no suppositions about the data. I'm not claiming the study is biased, merely that the evidence shown in the article is insufficient to back up the claims. I am not saying the claims are wrong, merely that further research would be required. The people who conducted the study may be completely correct, I just don't think there's enough evidence to merit the conclusion at this point.

That disagreements over how Shakespeare should be taught or whether some other literature should be taught instead - there is plenty of other worthy literature - have been going on for a long time does not mean they are invalid.

It's interesting that like-mindedness tends to shape assessment at every level of a debate. People who believe in one idea as opposed to another will award points to the person who reiterates a joke as opposed to the one who actually thought of it.

I say this not because I need the points but to ask another question:

If people are unwilling either to credit a source or fully read a post with which they disagree (which could lead to not knowing whom to credit), then where is the actual substance of that debate? It could be that what we like to call debates are actually opinion polls with extended comments.

For the example in this thread, see below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

With all due respect, I don't think you do hear my sentiment. How could you hear it above the din that ensued because the author of the article isn't praising paranormal-romance-novel-reading as the zenith of mental exercise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No one claimed that paranormal romance was the zenith of mental exercise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by QuantumIguana ...
No one claimed that paranormal romance was the zenith of mental exercise.....

Nooooo! Say it ain't true!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by QuantumIguana ...
No one claimed that paranormal romance was the zenith of mental exercise.....

Cripes that's gonna put the publishers of Mills and Boon meets Godzilla in a flurry

But if you missed my joke in the first place, then you probably haven't noticed how "up-lightened" I might be already. I even remember chortling when I thought of that ridiculous phrase.

Discussions don't have to be serious in tone to be detailed in content, but they can seem more serious when the point being made is unwelcome.

Here's something I believe should be avoided: Crediting someone with an idea which isn't theirs because we prefer their opinion or manner to that of the person who actually thought of it.

This happens everywhere in the world -- and fuels history, friendships and careers -- so I'm not trying to single anyone out. I'm only saying it's something I wish we didn't do.

(Clarification: In reiterating someone else's point accurately in order to respond to it, QuantumIguana was simply being a good listener. That's a virtue in itself and has nothing to do with my comment.)

Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 01-21-2013 at 12:53 PM.
Reason: To be more fair.